Yes, many times - but I'm not sure that I see the relevance of that to my question. OK, so it may be quite a walk from the station to the village, but the pub lunch and the post-lunch walk might be attractive for some.

Click to expand...

It's a tale of two White Horses From Washford to its nearby White Horse is 0.8 miles and from Stogumber to its nearby White Horse is 1.1 miles so not a lot in it really. Both options seem to have its attractions. I recommend Nat Pres folks using the train and doing either or both when things get back to normal.

No reason for minutes to be published, the statement is clearly made on behalf of the WSR and reflects the views of the PLC board, it is not an individual vanity trip.

Click to expand...

I would have agreed with MM, above "The question wasn't about publishing the minutes but asking if minutes were taken. If minutes were taken of the meetings then they should reflect what was said" but not his view of the Board Chairman, about whom I have little knowledge. This disagreement seems to revolve around discussions between the Plc Board and the S&D Trust that, it is claimed or denied, took place prior to the issue of the Notice to Vacate and are rapidly turning into a "he said, she said" squabble. As these discussions should have been recorded in the minutes of both parties, releasing the appropriate portion of the minutes to the shareholders / members would clarify the situation.

Perhaps with the emphasis on 'should'. In my previous career there have (fortunately not too many) occasions when I have been present at meetings where my recollection and notes, and those of a colleague, were at odds with what actually emerged in the Minutes - but as the Minutes had been signed by the Chairman of the meeting as ab accurate record, they were accepted as the 'truth'.

Click to expand...

Surely you were able to challenge the content of the minutes before the Chairman signed them ? It is standard procedure for a meeting to approve the minutes first.

It's a tale of two White Horses From Washford to its nearby White Horse is 0.8 miles and from Stogumber to its nearby White Horse is 1.1 miles so not a lot in it really. Both options seem to have its attractions. I recommend Nat Pres folks using the train and doing either or both when things get back to normal.

Steve

Click to expand...

Do both! From the map it seems to be about 5 miles between the two pubs as the crow flies, so go by train to one of them for a late lunch and then a nice walk over the hill to the other for an early dinner

I would have agreed with MM, above "The question wasn't about publishing the minutes but asking if minutes were taken. If minutes were taken of the meetings then they should reflect what was said" but not his view of the Board Chairman, about whom I have little knowledge. This disagreement seems to revolve around discussions between the Plc Board and the S&D Trust that, it is claimed or denied, took place prior to the issue of the Notice to Vacate and are rapidly turning into a "he said, she said" squabble. As these discussions should have been recorded in the minutes of both parties, releasing the appropriate portion of the minutes to the shareholders / members would clarify the situation.

Click to expand...

I strongly suspect that no minutes were taken, because no "meetings" took place - we appear to have situation that could have been designed for claim and counter-claim, where exploratory conversations are now being built up into something far more than was ever intended.

What would be interesting, however, are the formal board minutes from the WSR plc determining the plans for Washford and the corresponding need for the plc to recover the site. Because in the absence of those, it is rather hard to believe that the grounds presented by the plc (and on this I am inclined to believe @jma1009's account) reflect a settled decision on the part of the plc.

Like others, I would that the plc would step back, rescind the notice of eviction, and engage meaningfully with the S&DRT rather than engaging in press release politicking.

I would agree that would be normal practice, but sometimes it did not happen like that. It was not unknown for a Chairman to decline suggested corrections that did not accord with his view :-(

Click to expand...

It is not up to the Chairman to make that decision. Proposed amendments should be put to the meeting, who make their own decision based on their recall of the original meeting.
Given that the Minutes are the legal record of proceedings it is imperative that they are as accurate as possible. Things can turn quite nasty, and expensive (!), if a challenge arises as a result of poor recording.

It seems to me that it would be possible for the PLC to come up with a half way sensible plan for Washford and a justification for the eviction of the S&DRT, indeed it would move the argument along significantly were they to do so.

However to date they have not.

Click to expand...

surely there has to be justification for the notice to terminate the tenancy before the notice is issued, not dreamed up later?

Well at least we can predict what sort of appeals will be posted on the WSR YouTube account...

"In these times of crisis, many people are worried for the future, especially their financial future. We simply don't know how long this current situation will go on for, and lots of us are feeling the pinch.

"Like us, you're probably gravely worried about the situation of your local lawyers at this time. Many solicitors are having to consider keeping last year's car, and some barristers might even have to sell their second homes in the coming months. If the global pandemic lasts for more than a couple of months, they might even face the gravest threat of all - not renewing all of their golf club memberships.

"Here at WSR, we want to do what we can to help these deprived members of our community. If you donate to us, we can personally guarantee that not only will 100% of your donation go straight to suffering members of the legal profession here in West Somerset, but we will provide matching funds ourselves until our cash reserves run out, doubling the value of your donation! Not only that, but we promise that all funds will go direct to local lawyers who understand how things are different west of Bridgwater, who understand that things written on paper south of the M5 just don't apply any more when our Glorious Leader changes his mind.

"Donate now, and donate all you can afford. Your donation could change the life of an impoverished member of the legal profession...today"

The SDRT have what is known as a full repairing lease for Washford Station; they are required to maintain the station buildings at no expense to the WSR PLC - which they have done for the last 45 years or so, and will do so for the next 50 years. The SDRT pay rent and business rates.

This is quite different from the set up of 'Friends of so and so station' who are under no legal obligation to maintain the station (as in to be responsible for ALL repairs to the structure etc) or pay rent, or pay business rates.

The SDRT are legally required to maintain and repair Washford Station under the terms of it's lease, regardless as to how many passengers use or visit the station.

The lack of a train ticket selling facility at Washford is a complete 'red herring'; that is why the WSR has TTIs on it's trains.

Either this is 'bluff' from JJP, or sheer stupidity. The SDRT could start it's own County Court proceedings tomorrow to challenge the 'Notice to Quit' served upon it by the WSR PLC Board's Solicitors under s.25 and s.30 (g) grounds of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The WSR PLC would immediately face an application for 'security for costs' if it lodged a defence, plus an application for 'summary judgement'.

The WSR PLC can only rely on the s.30 (g) grounds 'the landlord intends to occupy the holding for the purposes, or partly for the purposes, of a business to be carried on by him therein, [or as his residence.]'

JJP himself stated that the WSR was on the brink of insolvency. If the SDRT go, so will the track in the yard, the buildings in the yard etc. The WSR PLC will have to pay the business rates and all other charges plus have to assume responsibility for maintaining the structure and repairs to the station etc. And no rental income.

Cheers,

Julian

Click to expand...

This sums it up nicely. I love the WSR but the plc is painting itself into a nasty corner as a bully.

A tin pot dictatorship? Picking fights for no reason with a heady combination of machismo and victimhood.

Spending money on therapists for the board might be a better use of money than spending it on lawyers. And it might have some more positive benefits for the line and those dealing with the PLC.

Click to expand...

All the more reason why perhaps things have to get really bad before people realise they have made a mistake in their choice of Chairman, and it may well take losing the line before the scales drop from peoples eyes , I hate to sound so draconian, but JJP has ousted virtually the whole board, and the ones that are left do his bidding, its like rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic, tinkering won't save anyone, the only option I can see open is to let JJP take the railway to the brink for the railway to go to the wall, then for the supporting charities to combine into one body, create a company to run the railway, and launch a save our railway fund, and see if the council will give them a lease on the line, and rebuild with a joint supporting / company board, and organise a share holding with the supporters group holding 51 per cent of any shares.

All the more reason why perhaps things have to get really bad before people realise they have made a mistake in their choice of Chairman, and it may well take losing the line before the scales drop from peoples eyes , I hate to sound so draconian, but JJP has ousted virtually the whole board, and the ones that are left do his bidding, its like rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic, tinkering won't save anyone, the only option I can see open is to let JJP take the railway to the brink for the railway to go to the wall, then for the supporting charities to combine into one body, create a company to run the railway, and launch a save our railway fund, and see if the council will give them a lease on the line, and rebuild with a joint supporting / company board, and organise a share holding with the supporters group holding 51 per cent of any shares.

do you mean they go on strike? the problem goes deeper than just who is chairman, its the inbuilt hostility at a board level I would say, a new chairman, trying to make his mark, board members who may hold a grudge against some other groups, and mis guided attempts to support a board that is making mistakes,

do you mean they go on strike? the problem goes deeper than just who is chairman, its the inbuilt hostility at a board level I would say, a new chairman, trying to make his mark, board members who may hold a grudge against some other groups, and mis guided attempts to support a board that is making mistakes,

Click to expand...

I think that is to overstate things. The chairman has undoubtedly created a board to suit himself, but I hesitate to accuse anyone of bad faith or grudges - the evidence is simply not there.